Talk:Two dots (diacritic)

Confusing and poor definition

The second paragraph contains the confusing tautology "The diaeresis represents the phenomenon also known as diaeresis" and the first paragraph starts with a description rather than the more useful defition. Describing them as "phenomena" is imprecise, phenomena are typically natural and grammar is artificial. Also "by contrast" is stylistically more conventional than "in contrast". I propose that the definition is re-worded as follows:

"The diaeresis (/daɪˈɛrɪsɪs/ dy-ERR-ə-sis; plural: diaereses), also diæresis, dieresis or hiatus is one of two uses of a diacritical mark in the form of two dots ( ¨ ) placed over a letter, usually a vowel. When that letter is an i or a j, the diacritic replaces the tittle: ï.[1]

The umlaut is also in the form of two dots (placed over an o or u) but is phonologically distinct from the diaresis. The diaeresis indicates that a vowel letter is pronounced separately from an adjacent vowel and not as part of a digraph or diphthong. The umlaut (/ˈʊmlaʊt/ UUM-lowt), by contrast, indicates a sound shift. These two diacritics originated separately; the diaeresis is considerably older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C405:700:2C84:A635:DAB4:A490 (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see my edits to the lead paragraph; these are intended to address the issues you raise, among others. yoyo (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I find current text in the lede, distinction between these two, clarifying (to me as a layman). Formally, and correctly, this should be taken from the article body text, (sections Diaeresis and Umlaut), but especially Umlaut has a different description. (Also, in the lede description the word "Umlaut" appears twice, like "for Umlaut see Umlaut". Could be nicer imo). -DePiep (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please Rewrite I am adding a note here because the title of your point is exactly the same as one I was about to make, namely, that this entire article is confusing because it is unintelligible to a reader with even above average English comprehension such as myself. I came here to find out if it is proper to use an umlaut in the English language and I was not helped. The article is full of linguistic jargon so that even a definition of an umlaut in simple terms is not given. I suggest the article be rewritten with a view to render it intelligible. SanVitores (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)SanVitores

@SanVitores: The problem is that this article is about the mark. It is not about the two reasons to use it (though it does summarise them), which I think is what you are looking for: the two articles that give that information are linked in the wp:hatnote at the top of the article. I have added a sentence to the lead to summarise the material on how it is used (or, more accurately, not used) in English. Do you think that the next person who comes along with your expectation will be better served now? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Actually, the problem is that the article is too technical for me. I saw your hatnote but I remained lost. I have a simple question, namely, may umlauts be used in English. I still do not know the answer but I am guessing that a character or letter with an umlaut does not exist in an English alphabet. I realize I am out of my depth here and I must seek a clarification elsewhere. No-one is at fault and I thank you for the courtesy of attempting to help me. SanVitores (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)SanVitores

@SanVitores: The sentence I added was Neither of these phenomena occur routinely in English, except in loanwords like naïve or for stylistic reasons (as in the Brontë family). Does it need to be more prominent? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Perfect. This sentence gives me my answer. I would like to remove the word routinely. It is prominent enough in my opinion. Thanks so much. SanVitores (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)SanVitores

@SanVitores: I seem to feel some ambiguity in your question, so let's disambiguate:

What I call umlaut (in the narrower sense) is a double-dot above a vowel, changing the timbre of that vowel (and, sorry, but I will have to use IPA characters, between slashes, in the examples): for instance, in German, umlaut changes a /a/ to ä /ɛ/, o /o/ or /ɔ/ to ö /ø/ or /œ/, u /u/ to ü /y/ and au /au/ to äu /ɔi/. In this sense, an umlaut can only be used in English as part of foreign words not yet anglicized: e.g. when talking of "the university of Göttingen". In a wider sense, the Germanic umlaut phenomenon is what gives us "strong plurals" as in man → men, goose → geese, mouse → mice, etc., but English doesn't use an umlaut mark in this latter case, unlike German which writes Mann → Männer, Gans → Gänse, Maus → Mäuse, etc. for the corresponding German words.

What I call diæresis is the fact of separating successive vowels in hiatus. This process can be marked by two dots over the second vowel, usually also on foreign words such as Chloë, Zoë, Noël, naïve, etc. The opposite of a diæresis (a "separation") is a syneresis (a "running-together"), both names come from Greek, and a syneresis is not marked by any particular diacritic.

English has a third use for that double-dot diacritic, as in the family name Brontë. This is an English word, albeit a proper name, and I'm not sure how to call this use of the diacritic, except by the name trema which is a general name for the diacritic itself across all its uses.

So to summarize: yes, the three above-mentioned uses of the trema (the double-dot diacritic) are possible in English, but they will happen rarely, and mostly (but not only) in foreign words.

I hope I've made myself understood. — Tonymec (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:I prefer to accept that the umlaut is not at all English and is never used in English except when borrowing a foreign word. The name Brontë may an English family name but it is not an English word, rather an affected idiosyncrasy added by the father of the Brontë sisters thinking his real name of Brunty was too humble. It is a fabrication.SanVitores (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@SanVitores: Yes, that is a correct summary.

@Tonymec: I guess you could call it a Metal umlaut. Mr Brontë was just a little ahead of the pack. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: hm, IIUC the Metal umlaut is used for decoration, like other "Metal" orthographic indiosyncrasies such as replacing R by Я in otherwise "plain" English text. The trema on the last letter of Brontë is there to have that e pronounced as a "normal" (fully syllabic) e, not as a schwa: Tolkien used the same artifice in e.g. the names Finwë, Olwë, Elwë, Andúnië, etc. and though they aren't supposed to be English, I feel certain that Tolkien put them there to make them fully syllabic even when read by English readers. — Tonymec (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@SanVitores: I've just come across English terms with diacritical marks, which may provide the explanations that you and other ESL students (and teachers) are looking for? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I like the opening three paragraphs which more-or-less answer my original query. Thank you. SanVitores (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I propose moving this page to "Trema" or "Trema (diacritic)".

As noted above in the section about splitting the page, this page is very odd. It begins, "The diaeresis... and the umlaut... are two different diacritical marks that (in modern usage) look alike." As though it's about two subjects instead of one.

After thinking about this pretty hard for a bit, I think the correct solution is not to split this page, but to rename it "trema", as suggested above. That way, the page is about the mark itself, and spends most of its page length talking about the various things it is used for, as is right and good.

I don't even think this sacrifices using the "most common term" (though see kwami above for why that's probably fine anyway); I think trema is the most common term for the mark itself, diaeresis is the most common term for a trema used to indicate diaeresis, and umlaut is the most common term for a trema used to indicate umlaut. (You can tell that neither of those are general terms for the mark because if you call an umlaut a diaeresis, or vice versa, people will make fun of you for being a rube.) All of these terms will be fully noted and discussed in the article, of course.

This solution allows this page to continue to exist, and be helpful, and discuss all uses of the mark, without being weird or confusing or contradictory or fragmented. Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(If somebody comes along and shows that "trema" is actually best thought of as referring to a third, distinct subset use of the mark, then my plan b is that we rename the page to ¨ until such a time as someone comes up with a real name for it.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would provide "equality of misery" to both camps, which is A Good Thing. So, tentative support from me.

A few comments

• Trema (disambiguation) calls the double overdot a Tréma. No justification is given for that spelling and would need to be researched before proceeding.
• The Unicode Consortium calls it COMBINING DIAERESIS
• Wiktionary gives the double dot as the only meaning of the word "Trema" in English. It defines "Tréma" as an alternative name for Trema.
• My Concise Oxford Dictionary doesn't list Trema (or Tréma), which is of some concern: is the name too obscure? If it is to be used as the new name for the article, then it will need to be given explicitly at the Diaeresis (disambiguation) and Umlaut (disambiguation) articles and also the articles that they list.

No further questions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of these comments, though I prefer to think of it as "equal ecstasy" instead of "equal misery" :P. The possibility that trema is too obscure does worry me, because I can't find it in the several physical dictionaries around my home, nor in the OED Online. I know it's the standard term in several European languages, but that doesn't help us for English Wikipedia. Later, I will see if I can find some good sources—if I can't, perhaps ¨, though an unconventional pick, would be the way to go, as that's what the dictionaries consistently indicate the mark by! Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the sources I can find on Google Books discussing the trema (which, indeed, you can find with or without accent mark) in English are discussing French or some other European language, and largely seem to imply this is a French/other term, or at least an English term for a French/other mark, with no mention of its use per se in English (although many of them do mention the diaeresis in the same breath—which is no surprise, because French uses the trema for the same thing). Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't see anyone agreeing to calling it ¨ because that is no name for an article. It is practically invisible!

The only use of the word at Cambridge University Press is Trema Micrantha, the tropical pioneer tree

Oxford suggests that I meant to write "Terma (disambiguation)"; neither Oxford Dictionary of English' nor the New Oxford American Dictionary list it, other than for its etymological contribution to words like helicotrema.

Dead end, I'm afraid. No easy answer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been done already: before this page was at Diaeresis (diacritic) it was at Trema (diacritic) and was moved (in 2011) after a long discussion at a regular RM proposal. In fact this page has been at Umlaut (diacritic), Trema (diacritic), Double dot (diacritic) and Diaeresis (diacritic) during its time, and there is little agreement on the correct title, as none of them seem to fully cover the content.
The problem, as is obvious from the lead sentence, is that "The diaeresis (also known as the trema) and the umlaut are two different diacritical marks" that happen to look alike, and mark "two distinct phonological phenomena". The solution (equally obviously, I would suggest) is to divide he content into separate articles covering the separate and distinct subjects: So I have proposed this, below. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And I propose we split the article instead

As pointed out above, the current content includes material on at least two distinct subjects, and the problem of finding a suitable title that covers them all (or at least, dissatisfaction with the title in current use) keeps recurring.
The logical remedy (also not the first time it’s been proposed) is to divide up the content. The article currently is 50Kb long, so it has enough material for a decent articles on the Diaeresis and the Umlaut diacritics, as well as on the various diacritical marks that use two dots and represent distinct phenomena that are neither. The title "Double Dot (diacritic)" seems fine to me for the latter, but an objection raised in the past was that as a name it isn’t supported by any reliable source, so an alternative would be a neutral, descriptive title, such as "Two dots (diacritic)", which does what it says on the tin.
In fact a better approach would be to move the article to a descriptive, over-arching title first, to keep the page history together, then split out the Diaeresis and Umlaut articles, leaving a summary and main article link for each. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, seems like a good idea to me! That would also line up with Dot (diacritic). Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I’ve added a split template to the page, and will see if there are any objections over the next week or so. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I ping User:John Maynard Friedman, who may be interested in this topic, for potential input. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Two dots (diacritic) sounds reasonable to me. Trema could redirect to it. This topic has had so many "full and Frank exchanges of view" in the past between proponents of each name and neither: this makes everyone equally (un)happy. Pinging @DePiep:, who may also have a view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• I can agree on split into "The Graphic Diacritic Character" (which includes {{Letters with diaeresis}}) and "Usages of the graphic Character" (like Umlaut). BTW, also previously discussed at Talk:Diaeresis (diacritic) § I propose moving this page to "Trema" or "Trema (diacritic)".. Name for the graphic can be "Diaeresis (diacritic)" per WP:LEASTASTONISHMENT (this being English wiki); for content article names see Diaeresis (disambiguation) (btw, word 'Umlaut' is missing there): multiple in one or combining ("Diaeresis and Umlaut"(?) is acceptable to me; no perfect title needed nor required)

It occurs to me: name and content of the usage article(s) is the bottleneck here, better solve that first. The Unicode thing is simple. -DePiep (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Dingolover6969, John Maynard Friedman, DePiep: Thank you for your comments: It's been over a month, and no-one else has chipped in; can I take it that it’s OK to go ahead with this? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, time to be bold. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So, the split is into the symbol (two dots) and its meaning in languages (Umlaut, Diaeresis, Dutch syllable-splitting; one article IIRC). I support, and boldness. However, the new article titles (content page titles) are unclear. For me, I claim again "Diaerisis" for the symbol (WP:LEAST), and the language TBD. Only after the titles are decided by themselves, a WP:DAB can be added -- but not as a compromise or solution in the name. Redirects can follow, possibly a DAB page is needed. So: what will be the two new names? DePiep (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As I understood it, we have a new article called Double dot (diacritic), which is maybe just a list article that describes two horizontal dots above and below, plus two vertical dots above and below, and their usages. We retain Diaeresis (diacritic) but reduce it so that it does not try to encompass Umlaut (diacritic) or other non-diaeresis forms, but it would need a new hat-note to say something like This article about the usage in French etc, for German see Umlaut (diacritic), for other uses see Double dot (diacritic). Someone (meaning Moonraker12 ) would need to go through all the links to Diaeresis (diacritic) to check what exactly is intended. The priority would be piped links like [[Diaeresis (diacritic)|something different]].

Moonraker12, given the significant risk of misunderstanding and cross-purposes argument, it would be better that you make draft versions in your sandbox first, for interested parties to consider. You need one for Double dot (diacritic) and one for Umlaut (diacritic) (both of which currently redirect to Diaeresis (diacritic). It might be wise to sandbox the shortened version of Diaeresis (diacritic) too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Dingolover6969, John Maynard Friedman, DePiep: You are right, this probably need fleshing out a bit. My aim was to do this as easily as possible (ie. with the least number of complications), so the plan is:

• .1) Move this page as it stands to the new title (see point 6 below) to preserve the page history and keep this talk page (and its history) together with the article. This page will then need a new (or shortened) introduction, and some of the sections will need re-naming (see 4)
• .2) Split (c/p) the sections on the diaeresis (ie. part of the Intro & Names sections, History, Modern usage) back to the Diaeresis (diacritic) page (starting afresh); they are currently about one-fifth of the article here, so 8-10Kb; a decent size for a stand-alone article. That will need a new Introduction, Ref section, Talk page and attribution detail; this page will need a one/two sentence summary and a main article link in the Uses section (The hatnote is a good idea; I hadn’t thought of that!).
• .3) Split the sections on the umlaut (Intro, Names, History, Printing conventions, Borrowing, Use of) to Umlaut (diacritic) (currently about a third of this article: maybe 15-20Kb, so more than enough); ditto for section here and additions there.
• .4) On his page:

1. Other uses: change heading to 'Uses'; add summary paras for diaeresis, umlaut
2. Letters with diaeresis: change heading to 'Letters with double dot'
3. Computer use section: This section needs an explanatory note that unicode uses the term diaeresis to describe all double dots regardless of the meaning of the term, (which IMO is part of the problem here, as this page is trying to describe three different/contradictory things at once).

(PS: There may even be a case for having all the computer stuff on a separate page too (something like Diaeresis (unicode)); But I don’t want to get into that here)

The (reduced) double-dot article will contain Introduction, Uses, Letters with the double dot diacritic, Computer usage, etc. (about 20-25Kb)

• 5) incoming links: Over 500, but a lot of them are (I suspect) because of this title being on a template there (the main one is Template:Navbox diacritical marks, there are about 20 others). A number of double-dotted letters also redirect here and have pages linked (about eight have have 20-50 pages linked, the rest (about a dozen) have just one or two. Once that’s done the link situation should be clearer. And yes, I’m OK with doing that!)
• .6) New title: I was thinking of Two dot (diacritic) for the new title; Double dot (diacritic) is good (better?), but the objection to that in the past was that ‘it isn’t supported by reliable sources’. As 'two dot diacritic' is purely descriptive it doesn’t need one. Also, double dot is occupied by a redirect now, and that means getting an admin to delete it. There may well be a better title, but (the perfect being the enemy of the good) I’d prefer to get this move/split done and out the way; some future discussion can resolve a better title for what is here, if needed.
  

That’s the plan; Does it seem OK? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This plan seems perfectly cromulent to me. Not to waive the interest for anyone else, but I personally don't feel a need to see any sandbox draft either, after this detailed description. The one nitpick I have—and I'm not sure if you've made a typo here or changed your mind slightly from your earlier proposal, so sorry if this is redundant—is that I'm pretty sure the name should be "Two dots (diacritic)", not "Two dot (diacritic)". I can find plenty of descriptive mentions of the trema/umlaut/diaeresis that refer to it as "two dots", but the only uses of "two dot" seem to be functioning as adjectives modifying another word, eg "two-dot diacritical mark", and thus would be unsuitable. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dingolover6969: I had no particular preference between Two dot (sing.) and Two dots (pl.), but your suggestion embiggens the proposal, so I can go with the plural. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid that this shows that DePiep's caution was justified. Your proposal now is substantially different to what I expected and I'm sorry to apply the emergency brake at this late stage but I must oppose that plan. An article about the two dots diacritic should be only about the diacritic, giving links to longer articles (where they exist) about specific cases. The Diaeresis_(diacritic) article should be about that usage: if you keep it as being the current jack of all trades, expanded with the various types and usages of double-dot diacritic, it gets even worse and I fail to see how your proposal splits the article in any useful way, as initially proposed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I can see this has become confusing; my apologies. You say you expected the Diaeresis (diacritic) article to be just about that usage, and not including with all the various types and usages of double-dot diacritic (is that right?), and that the two dots diacritic should be a kind of list page, with links to longer articles about specific cases.

That is pretty much what I was proposing, I think; the Diaeresis article would be about the diacritic (used to 'mark the separation of two distinct vowels in adjacent syllables', as found in English and various southern European languages) and use the Diaeresis section from here (History and Modern usage) with the relevant parts of the Intro & Names sections; (ditto for the Umlaut page); The Two dots page will be on all uses of the double dot, as listed in the current Other uses section (and will need a listing for the diaeresis and umlaut also, for completeness). The only bug-bear is that (as I have now realised) the computer usage section constitutes a third separate article option; but that needs to be a separate proposal, I think. Maybe I do need to rough it out in a sandbox, so that it’s clear ( I was hoping to avoid the extra work!) What do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

No, not really, because you said you wanted to move the current article to Two dots (diacritic).

• As DePiep says above, readers expect the Diaeresis_(diacritic) article to be specifically about that specific application of the two-dots diacritic, what it means, why it is used, why is it called a Diaeresis, etc., "used to 'mark the separation of two distinct vowels in adjacent syllables', as found in English and various southern European languages" exactly as you say. We definitely need to retain an article called Diaeresis (diacritic) which is about that topic.
• I expect Two dots (diacritic) to be about the various ways of using two dots as a diacritic, specifically which languages use which form. The "Names" section from this article is WP:SPLIT to there. So is "Other uses" and "Computer use" (leaving a pointer behind). The whole 'Umlaut' section is SPLIT to the new umlaut (diacritic) article.
• Also, per wp:EGG, readers expect Umlaut (diacritic) to go to an article about Umlauts, not an article about Diaereses, as at present.

Are we only arguing about the means rather than the end? A sandbox version can be just an outline, just the section and subsection titles. No need to worry about history and attribution when you follow the instructions at WP:SPLIT, that process tells you how to deal with it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think the means rather than the end sums it up; the sticking point seems to be my step one, Move this page as it stands to the new title, before splitting it up. We could split Umlaut and Two dots stuff from here, leaving the rump of the article at Diaeresis: The reason I planned to move it to Two dots first was because the article is currently an over-arching treatment of all two-dot diacritics, despite the title, and it has been almost from the beginning, It has also been at various titles, including Umlaut (d), Double dot (d), Trema (d) as well as Diiaerisis (d). So I think it is important that the page history, together with the talk page discussions and the archives of those discussions, stay with the over-arching page. It shouldn’t make any difference to the outcome, only to the process. Anyway I have put drafts of the split articles into a sandbox, here, for your perusal. Are they what you expected them to be? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the last three drafts in your sandbox, that looks fine to me. The end has justified the means.

My preference is to let the existing Diaeresis (diacritic) article stand (heavily pruned to create the other two), letting its page history survive because that is how it was built. So could we have some more voices please? It doubt that it is a show-stopper for either of us. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong opinion about it, but it makes more sense to me to end up with this talk page attached to Two dots (diacritic), since the article has already meandered through several terms for the two-dot diacritic, and the talk page is often talking in tandem or close succession about several different applications of the two dots. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I forgot about the talk page history. I concede. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Dingolover6969, John Maynard Friedman, DePiep: Thanks for that, comrades; If there are no objections I will make a start on this tomorrow... Moonraker12 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Aftertalk

Among the many mysteries of The New Yorker is that funny little umlaut over words like coöperate and reëlect. The New Yorker seems to be the only publication on the planet that uses it, and I always found it a little pretentious until I did some research. Turns out, it's not an umlaut. It's a diaeresis.

I have not engaged in the most recent discussion here (leading to actual page moves), so all I can do is talk ("lament") afterwards. That is: I am surprised that Diaeresis (diacritic) is about a single, specific usage of the double dot 'diacritic, ie a second page title for the same typographic image. Meanwhile, Diaeresis (disambiguation) says there also exists Diaeresis (linguistics), which per lede has the same topic as this one. Confusing, and I think we still have not disentangled the topics.

IOW, can someone give an overview of the articles involved (including ridirects), and their topic (esp wrt language and wrt graph, distinmction & sameness)? -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest part of the problem is that, from a typography point of view, there is no distinction and thus no need for more than one article. From a linguistics PoV, there is certainly a distinction and it is inconvenient that distinct marks do not exist (as they do in IPA). There is the further complication that, in EN-US usage, the mark is more often called an umlaut whereas in EN-UK usage, diaeresis has been more common. Google's ngram viewer shows that the former is significantly and consistently more popular than the latter. Had we not done this reorganisation, there would have been a very strong case per WP:COMMONNAME to rename it.

I understand your concern about navigation, which is why I tried to improve the hatnotes. No doubt they can be improved more?

Diaeresis (linguistics) redirects to Vowel hiatus. As I understand it, Diaeresis (diacritic) is about the mark used to indicate the hiatus, whereas Diaeresis (linguistics) [sic] is about the phenomenon itself. The same is true of Umlaut (diacritic) and Umlaut (linguistics). Inevitably (in each pairing) there will be some overlap because it is impossible to describe the purpose of a mark without at least summarising the phenomenon it is marking.

Does that respond adequately to your concern? If not, can you be more specific? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Not clarifying, sorry.

If current situation is meant to be the aim, and so be stable, then a simple clarification should do. After all, if one cannot convince/clarify for an interested editor like me here, how in cyberspace can we expect a Reader understand it?

So, the testing question again is simple: what are the involved pages, and what do they contain? (hint: if it takes a compound sentence, or more than one, to describe/hatnote a page, something is wrong). I think DAB and redirect pages are relevant too. @Moonraker12 and Dingolover6969: pinged. DePiep (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: To reply to your first post, the Diaeresis (diacritic) is about a single, specific usage of the double-dot because that is what the word means (see also here). Any confusion is IMO because in computing, the term is used without distinction, and refers to all forms of a two dot diacritic without regard to the meaning of the term. (For instance, in Arabic the Tāʾ marbūṭah, which is used to mark feminine gender for nouns (So, neither a separation of two distinct vowels in adjacent syllables nor a sound shift phenomenon in which a back vowel becomes a front vowel) is encoded as T+0308 combining diaeresis, without regard to the meaning of either). To clarify this slightly I have added Diaeresis (computing) to the Diaeresis dab page; I’m still working my way through the articles linked, so I have no doubt I will find some examples. And the reason why the diaeresis page and this one (and the umlaut page) have the the same typographic image is because they are visually identical. That doesn’t make them the same thing, as the text explains. As for Diaeresis (linguistics), (or Vowel hiatus, whichever term you prefer) that is linguistic concept (which that article explains), while the diaeresis diacritic is the typographic marker for it. Again, related but not the same (ie. discrete subjects with their own notability).

As for this not being clear, (your second post) what exactly is not clear? That diaeresis and umlaut have specific (and different) meanings, unrelated to all the other uses the diacritic is put to? I don’t really understand your confusion, or your request. The involved pages are the ones set out in the proposal, above: Diaeresis (diacritic), Umlaut (diacritic) and the rump of the previous article (a list of other uses which are neither diaereses or umlauts) here. As for what they contain, tells you in the introduction of each page. Are you labouring under some misconception of what these terms (diaeresis, umlaut, and two dots) actually mean? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that DePiep is confused but rather that we are at cross purposes somehow. I was also going to say that I don't see the problem, which is not to say that there is no problem but literally that I can't see it. So it must be a question of perspective. Maybe we are too close to the detail and missing a bigger picture? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I can repeat, Moonraker12, 𝕁𝕄𝔽: TL;DR. (a) if it takes so much text (twice) to explain to an involved editor like me, how would a simple Reader ever understand the situation? (b) why cannot a simple list of articles & their topic be produced to clarify? (What should have been in the final Moves-proposal in the first place). IOW, the move discussion has not lead to a comprehensive overview/proposal of the new article situation. (c) The only solution left: go digging myself. DePiep (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: I can’t decide if you are trolling, now, or what. Are you complaining now because the answer is too long? As for what a simple reader might understand, I venture to suggest they will manage better now that the content isn’t all jumbled up on a single page. If you want a list of the articles produced it’s there at the top of the section, or it’s at my sandbox where the rough drafts were posted; if you want the final move proposal, it’s the same as the original (after a long discussion which you were welcome to contribute to); These are all in plain view. If you are huffy because you have to go digging for yourself, I don’t know what else to say. Anyway, I will be out of town for a few days, so answers from me to any further questions may have to wait a bit. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Moonraker, you absolutelymust assume good faith. DePiep is an accomplished and serious editor. I suggest you strike that comment. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why you should doubt my questions. I've described the issue with long answers on a talkpage in this situation. Alas, I have not been able to get my question over, though did not write blames; guess I'll have to find an other approach. Now, I'll have to study the situation to get to the reader's experience. DePiep (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

DePiep: (edit conflict)

(a) As I said, no doubt the hat-notes can be improved. [Is that what your point a or am I still missing it?]

(b) the mark and the linguistic phenomenon it denotes

1. two dots (diacritic): the overarching article that describes how this diacritic is used in various languages and what they call the mark. Then in more detail the two cases best known to anglophones:
   1. diaeresis (diacritic), mainly for Romance languages. The name for the mark preferred by Unicode.
   2. Umlaut (diacritic), mainly for Germanic languages. The name for the mark preferred by IPA.
2. The linguistic phenomenon that needs an orthographic indication, which is why we have the mark at all. There is no overarching article.
   1. diaeresis (linguistics), the hiatus
   2. Umlaut (linguistics), the sound mutation

(c) but you already knew all that, so I must still be missing your point? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a very good starting point for me. I'll see if it is needed to rephrase (or evven repost at all) my questions. -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a navbox? We could add schwa etc? and see also one dot (diacritic). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Diaereses" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Diaereses and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Diaereses until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Trema

Having cut "trema" from diaeresis (diacritic) intending to put it here (since previous discussions have asserted that it is a name for the diacritic in general and not the diaeresis in particular, I went to get a supporting citation. And found none, at least not at any of the Oxford Reference sources. Yes, it has multiple cases of words beginning trem... and gives the etymology as "from the Greek trēma, a 'hole'" or "Greek, trēma 'perforation'".

Perhaps more signficantly, European Psychiatry (Cambridge University Press) has a paper that begins The concept of trema refers to an initial phase in the psychotic process that is characterized by intense anguish, an experience of hostility and a feeling of imminent catastrophe. This situation engenders in the patient a sensation of being in a tunnel than can only lead to something terrible but ineffable.

So I can't see how we can include it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Hachette translates French: tréma as diaeresis. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Yeah… I was wondering what to do about the trema when I was planning the split. The Greeks used the term just for the two dots, but it became particularly associated with the diaeresis a long time ago. The OED doesn’t even list it, so it certainly isn’t a general term for the two dots, and/so putting it here might just confuse the issue (The page has been at Trema (diacritic)) in the past because of that). Trema redirects here now, but with no anchor (and nothing really to explain it); personally I think it should redirect to the Diaeresis (diacritic) page, either to #History or to #Name, for clarity.

Interestingly, The Greek page linked to this one is titled Διαλυτικά (Which google translates as Solvents/Diaphrams/dilutives), and doesn’t have Trema (Τρέμα) at all (Google Translate also says Diaeresis is Latin; make of that what you will) though it does have Διαίρεση, which means division, and which links back here to Division (mathematics). Also the French WP has Tréma (homonymie) (a dab page), and Trema (the tree), while Tréma ( which Google translates as 'Umlaut', so you might be right about it becoming the common name in the US) describes what we call a diaeresis. Anyway, thanks for tidying up after me, Moonraker12 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Brontë vs. Mötley Crüe

Is it really fair to say that the dots in Brontë are there for purely stylistic reasons, like in Mötley Crüe? It seems that in Brontë we have a kind of diaeresis-like usage, where the dots serve a non-decorative purpose (namely, to indicate that the e is not silent). W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, it looks rather OR and needs a citation. But conventionally, Brontë père should have written "Bronté". My opinion of course, so irrelevant. We need a citation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I happen to know that Tolkien's elvish languages also use two dots over terminal e's to indicate that they aren't silent e's. Perhaps this could be considered a special case of the diaeresis, as that elvish page seems to consider it. Well, I'm sure I can dig up a source discussing Brontë more specifically, anyway. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh, ok, well, this was less easy than I thought. The obvious first place to look is Brontë_family#Origin_of_the_name, which only has two references. The first, http://www.haworth-village.org.uk/brontes/patrick/patrick.asp, doesn't even use the dots over the e's in its text, and provides no explanation for them, although it does forward the theory that it's named after Bronte (mythology) or Bronte, Sicily. The second source, which dots its e's and can be read at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19011/19011-h/19011-h.htm#page29, favors the Bronte, Sicily theory, and says:

To me it is perfectly clear that for the change of name Lord Nelson was responsible, and that the dukedom of Brontë, which was conferred upon the great sailor in 1799, suggested the more ornamental surname.

Note that Bronte, Sicily has an ë at the end of its name because it's (uncitedly?) actually Arbëresh letter for schwa (as covered in our current two dots article), suggesting the startling possibility that Brontë's ë is actually fully semantic and the name should be pronounced "brontuh".

To dive deeper I will have to read sources outside wikipedia. I look forward to consulting "Sicily and the Brontë Name" by Jane Grey Nelson https://doi.org/10.1179/030977671796481528 and, indeed, the whole cottage industry of similarly-titled academic papers on this subject that pop up when I google the title. I will probably add them as references to the Brontë family's wikipedia page's Origin of the name section as I go through them. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

What should two dots redirect to?

Assuming we've settled on Two dots (diacritic) for the name of this article (and if not fully so, we can always put this discussion off for later), the question arises whether we should make two dots a redirect to this page. The other plausible candidate, I think, would be to redirect it to Two Dots, a respectable and notable but somewhat-obscure mobile video game from 2014. Or, perhaps, a disambiguation page, which could also link to maybe three other pages, like Twodot, Montana; Rā with two dots vertically above; Colon (punctuation); and (U+205A ⁚) Two dot punctuation, if wikipedia's search function for "two dots" is anything to go by. Seems like it would be useful to take one of these options. Dingolover6969 (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a disambiguation article. You have almost written it already. There is a strong case IMO to move Two Dots to Two dots (game) while we are on the case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! If no one else chimes in by the time I'm done reading the WP:DAB guidelines (busy now, so probably in a day or two), I'll go ahead and do it. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

So, then article Two dots is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with content (hatnotes apply), and Two dots (diacritic) has the list then. Sounds good. DePiep (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait wait ... why not colon? Since we use descriptive title (not a name for the graph), and an ambiguous one, the DAB term might be needed. DePiep (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, based on the searches, the majority are searching for colon. Also yes, IMO the new dab article sb the primary topic. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been bold and created Two dots (disambiguation). Please review. Two dots and Two Dots redirect to it. Initially I had {{Dabprimary}} as pseudo-lead but removed it as not appropriate because it gives inappropriate information. Is there something more appropriate? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I am happy with this one, a good overview (for me at least), and looks like in spirit of WP:DAB. IMO, and example for Motorhead Crew or so could be added. Could you inform us about hatnotes with it? DePiep (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Tyvm. I decided originally to have one example of each usage but the reviewer deleted as not compliant with WP:DAB: on balance I concurred.

I don't understand your question about hat-notes? Would you elaborate, please? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC) revised --15:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Almost every article related to a DAB page can have a DAB-related hatnote. DePiep (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, thank you! Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep:. Sorry, it seems that I'm still being dense. I thought that I had already done that, for example

This article is about the diacritic mark used to denote the separation of two consecutive vowels. For other uses of the same or similar mark, see Two dots (diacritic). For other uses, see Diaeresis (disambiguation).

Is that not what you mean? Is it appropriate to have that at colon (punctuation)? (I don't think it is.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:HATNOTE and especially WP:DABLINK describe why and when to apply. Mostly about "Am I on the right page"-situations. There are sound theories with it (like, if the reader has typed/clicked on "Two dots (diacritic)" is can not be a confusion). I'd have to restudy it myself, so I thought I'd leave this nice little challange to you. Since you like good edting so much. DePiep (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

JMF, I am not saying stuff is missing or wrong. I only suggested to check all related articles regarding DAB-hatnotes. If this is unclear, just ignore. DePiep (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ÿ

Request to move, actioned May 2023
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@John Maynard Friedman: Thank you for pointing out the problem with Ÿ. At the time I made my changes, Ÿ was a dab following a RfD. It has since been replaced by an article. I've retargeted Ÿ (vowel) to the new article for now, but someone may replace the article by a dab again per RfD. Certes (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC) @Certes:, thank in return for your considerate response as that possibility had not occurred to me and maybe it should have. What made me jump to a conclusion was that Close central rounded vowel § Close central compressed vowel suggests that ÿ is an unofficial IPA notation. Minefield! I can see that there might be a case for a DAB, but more likely because of the handwritten Dutch ij ligature than a rather esoteric IPA construction. '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,"it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less"' — Alice in Wikipedia Wonderland. Watch this space! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC) revised 21:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC) After Spitzak's rewrite, the Ÿ article as it stands now must surely be the stable outcome. It delivers on the intent of the RfD consensus without getting shoe-horned into sparse dab article: in form it it is now just like every other article about a single grapheme, which is what it should have been in the first place. Hopefully that will end the tempest in a thimble. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)